A federal appeals court had some advice Friday for anyone whose reputation gets trashed on talk radio: Don't bother suing for slander, because no one reasonably expects objective facts from the typical talk show host.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco offered no solace to an Oregon couple who sued Tom Martino, host of a nationally syndicated consumer-advice show. In a 2004 call from a customer of the couple's recreational vehicle outlet who complained about the store's failure to repair a defective personal watercraft, Martino told her, "They're just lying to you."

That's not slander, the court said, because slander and its written counterpart, libel, are false statements of fact that damage someone's reputation. An assertion that might otherwise sound factual - that the retailer lied - would be interpreted as opinion by any reasonable talk show listener, the court said.

Martino's program "contains many of the elements that would reduce the audience's expectation of learning an objective fact: drama, hyperbolic language, an opinionated and arrogant host, and heated controversy," the three-judge panel said, upholding a judge's dismissal of the suit.

Caller's version of facts

Besides, the court said, Martino was obviously relying on the caller's version of the facts and had no apparent reason to question it. That means he was just giving his own opinion of someone else's account, and wasn't making factual claims of his own, the panel said, citing a past ruling that allowed similar reliance on news articles.

The couple's lawyer, Linda Marshall, questioned the court's depiction of the world of talk shows.

"Millions of people do listen to talk radio," she said. "A lot of talk radio hosts do make an effort to be accurate. ... People believe them and rely upon them, particularly in consumer cases."

Marshall said her clients, John and Susan Gardner, are unlikely to appeal further.

Martino's lawyer, Gordon Hinkle, called the ruling "a strong vindication of free-speech principles on talk radio." He said reasonable listeners would have understood that Martino was giving an "off-the-cuff opinion, not a observation of perjury."

Callers threatened violence

Martino took a call in November 2004 from Melissa Feroglia, a Washington state resident who had bought a personal watercraft from the Gardners' Mount Hood Polaris store in Boring, Ore. She said it had broken down repeatedly and that John Gardner had promised her a refund, then reneged and said it was fixed. By then, she said, the weather was too cold to try it out until spring.

Martino told her she was being lied to. His producer came on the air and said he had called the shop and had been told by the general manager to contact the manufacturer. Martino said they had called the manufacturer, who referred them back to the dealer.

"Polaris sucks," Martino said. He urged his listeners to tell the dealer and the manufacturer they would never buy any of their products.

The Gardners' lawsuit said the store's phone lines had been flooded within seconds of the broadcast and that some callers had threatened violence to the couple and their business. The store also became the target of insults shouted by drivers in the neighborhood for several weeks and suffered about $600,000 in lost business, the suit said.

Hinkle said the manufacturer refunded Feroglia's money the day after the broadcast.